|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
For more than a decade, Mountain View has been looking to build a new police and fire headquarters at the corner of Villa and Franklin streets. But getting the project off the ground has proved to be a challenge, with spiking costs forcing the city to pare back its vision.
Now on the cusp of starting construction, the project has hit another obstacle, this time related to the city’s plans to chop down trees to make way for the new building.
In a 4-1 vote, the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission directed city staff Tuesday evening to come up with a new plan to mitigate the loss of dozens of mature trees that are expected to be axed. The commissioners voiced concern that the proposal for replacing the existing trees does not include enough native plantings, nor sufficient tree canopy coverage.
“We can’t stop the project,” Commissioner Ronit Bryant said at the March 17 meeting. “But the type of mitigation that’s being proposed, I am completely opposed to.”
The request to revise the tree mitigation plan could put a kink in the project’s timeline. Partial demolition of the site, including tree removals, is slated to begin this fall, according to the staff report. Before then, city staff plan to bring the tree mitigation and construction plan to the City Council for approval in June.
“I think we do have time, [but] not much,” Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango said.
Dismay over tree mitigation, calls for more native plantings
Three years ago, the City Council approved design plans for a new public safety building to replace the current aging facility, which is not up to seismic safety standards. The redeveloped site will include a 75,000 square foot police and fire administration building and a three-level garage with an enclosed shooting range.
As part of the project, the city plans to cut down 76 trees, including 42 heritage trees, which are bigger mature trees that are protected by a city ordinance. To mitigate the loss of the trees, city staff have proposed planting 118 new trees, nine of which would be California native species and 109 of which would be “semi-native” species, according to the staff report.
Commissioners balked at the idea of planting so many semi-native species and described the “semi-native” label as misleading. While drought-tolerant, the plantings are not indigenous to the area, a point also raised by several public commentators.
“The plant palette is just all wrong,” Commissioner Sandy Sommer said. “Especially given our biodiversity and urban forest plan, which calls for a high native component.”
The number of heritage trees being removed also troubled commissioners, with Jonathan Davis casting the dissenting vote on the grounds that the project was taking out too many mature trees.
“I really don’t think this reflects even an attempt by the city to develop in accordance with what it says its values are or what we’re imposing on the residents,” Davis said. “I won’t support any mitigation plan.”
Commissioner IdaRose Sylvester expressed similar sentiments, expressing concern that the city project would send the wrong message to private developers.
“We get very, very few opportunities to build new city buildings where we have full control over what we plant,” Commissioner IdaRose Sylvester said. “The ones we do become showcases for best practices and forestry management, including preserving heritage trees when possible and planting native species.”
The commissioners urged city staff to revise the tree mitigation plan to include more native trees. They also encouraged staff to plant trees in the immediate vicinity of the public safety building, or in the surrounding neighborhood, if the site itself could not accommodate all the replacement trees.
City staff said they would return to the Parks and Recreation Commission with a revised tree mitigation plan before bringing it to the City Council in June.
Construction timeline for public safety building
While the commissioners largely focused on the tree mitigation plan, the staff report also laid out a construction timeline for the project, which will occur in three phases and is expected to take five years to complete.
Phase one will focus on “selective” demolition and is scheduled to begin this fall. The city plans to demolish a portion of the front of the existing police and fire building while keeping the rest of the building intact and operational during construction, according to the staff report.
Phase two will focus on the construction of the new public safety building, which is expected to start in summer 2027 and take two years to construct. Upon completion of the new building, police and fire personnel will vacate the old facility. The city plans to demolish the old public safety building and make other site improvements, including the construction of a new public parking area. These activities are slated to start in summer 2029 and end in fall 2030, according to the staff report.
Phase three will focus on the construction of a three-story parking garage and a “cold shell” of the planned shooting range, depending on whether the city has enough money to fund it. A portion of the work can occur off-site and then be installed, according to the staff report. This work is scheduled to begin in spring 2029 and end in summer 2031.
City’s message to residents/private developers: do as I say not as I do.
Prior to not adhering to the spirit of its own tree preservation/replacement ordinances, the City brushed away its own historical preservation aspirations. See “City plans to raze historic police building but will keep a record with drawings, photographs and public art” https://www.mv-voice.com/city-government/2025/11/05/mountain-view-approves-environmental-impact-report-for-new-police-fire-headquarters/
Thank you to the Parks Commission to pushing back to find a solution that doesn’t involve cutting down heritage trees and replanting with non-natives. One of the best things about our community is the tree cover and the concern for paying attention to science and the need to increase the number of native plants and trees to support our environment, save water, keep/create habitat and make our cities better for the human and animal inhabitants. – Libby Karolczak Santa Clara County Climate Steward
Thank you and kudos to the Parks and Recreation Commission for standing up to the powers that be and for the people of our fair city. 76 trees/42 heritage are a huge amount to lose. Usually mitigation is done on a 3:1 ratio and this is not even 2:1. With all the other expenses associated with the project, having enough, and native, trees should be a priority for our “biodiverse” city.
Good work, PRC! I know it isn’t easy to say “no”. I hope work can be done to remove fewer of those heritage trees and include more native trees. The only leeway I can see would be allowing trees native to areas south of us that might be better suited to our expected warmer future climate.
Agreed. The PRC for sure did the right thing here. Now to see what comes of this when Staff comes back to the PRC and ultimately to City Council in June.